User talk:203.214.51.192

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Six Sigma. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, as you did in Cohen's kappa, you will be blocked from editing. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, please ensure that you insert correct and factual information into articles. I am not one of the creators of (nor do I have any affiliations with) Zen the Intergalactic Ninja as you suggested in these edits: [1] --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Dispute with AbsolutDan

AbsolutDan seems to be confused about the difference between useful content and blantant advertzing. How much advertizing is on this site: http://www.6sigma101.com/glossary/topics.htm? How much of useful content on this site? I welcome all third party opinions. TIA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.51.192 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Advertising is not the only criterion, even a single non-commercial link can be vanity spam. I can't use that page at all with my standard browser. Alone because of this the link should be avoided under WP:EL. Your main contributions (besides campaigning against AbsolutDan to keep the link) are several other links to sites owned by MiC Quality. You re-included this one at design of experiments and now use the 'why not' argument trying to shift the burden of proof. You're spamming. Femto 15:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL - "Links normally to be avoided" .. "Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community (for example, sites that only work with a specific brand of browser)." As far as I can tell your standard browser is Opera. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_(browser): "As of July 2006, usage data gives Opera's overall global share of the browser market as being between 0.5% and 1.0%" - 1% is hardly a significant proportion. You are (mis)using Wikipedia's own rules to make your point (which is peripheral to the main topic of usefulness of the linked content in question).

Point 2 - "Advertising is not the only criterion", however this is the criterion that AbsolutDan used when he removed the link. Point 3 - "several other links to sites owned by MiC Quality" - please be specific. What are those sites? Can you list the links? You are making statements that are simply not true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.51.192 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. One percent is sigma 3, isn't it? You of all people should accept this as significant to an encyclopedia that should be usable for everyone.
  2. You're adding links to the company you're obviously associated with. Advertising it is. The removal criterion is appropriate.
  3. A simple look at your Special:Contributions/203.214.51.192 and contribs below should clear up whose statements are true.
Femto 17:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


6sigma101.com has been spammed across multiple articles by several usernames and IPs which appear to be working in concert. Please see the following:

There was a heated discussion about the link here: Talk:Six Sigma where it was determined the link was not extremely helpful and is to a site that is intended to promote their services (6sigma training). If you do a WHOIS on 203.214.69.7 ([2]) and 203.214.51.192 ([3]), you can see they both come from the same ISP. It seems apparent that this is simply the new IP of the above contributor(s), back to try to include links to their site, in blatent violation of guidelines. --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As always AbsolutDan's argument totally ignores the merits of the link and the content, and instead focuses on continuing his war on perceived spam. Femto very clearly (mis)uses the concepts to support his clearly flawed logic (since when 1% is a significant proportion of the audience? (we are not talking about rejects)) Can anyone help me here with a professional review of the proposed links? How much advertizing is the Six Sigma Glossary - http://www.6sigma.com/glossary/? TIA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.51.192 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There are clear guidelines about spam, which speak to exactly the methods you are using to add your link. I suggest you go read them now. I'll make it real easy for you - click the blue link here: WP:SPAM --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support for Professional Content and Links in Wikipedia

I would appreciate your support against "self-confessed spam vigilantes" like AbsolutDan and Femto. They are removing useful professional content from Wikipedia. TIA

[edit] Inappropriate messages

This [4] was not an appropriate message. If you have issues with my contributions or anyone else's, follow the dispute resolution process. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from User talk:AbsolutDan. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


In response to your latest message on my talk page:
On the contrary, the disupute resolution process applies to any dispute between users. I'm not sure what you mean by "excessive power" - I am not an admin, or a 'crat, I am simply a regular editor with no more "power" than yourself. May I suggest that you take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and practice? Help:Contents is a good start --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did in Design of experiments, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support for Professional Content and Links in Wikipedia

Looking for your support, still hoping there are professionals involved in running Wikipedia, not just self-confessed "spam" and "external link" vigilante. TIA

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Sopranosmob781 15:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Please sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). Additionally, refrain from trolling against specific users; if you have problems with someone, there are appropriate channels you may go through to help resolve your dispute. Do not harass other users, or you will be blocked. --Emufarmers(T/C) 15:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to User talk:AbsolutDan, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Sopranosmob781 15:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked for 48 hours

Starting a "petition" against another user pretty much defines troll-like activity as well as disruption. --Woohookitty(meow) 16:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/3/User_talk%7E203.214.51.192.html"